Good News for Freedom of Speech?

George Will reports with relief that "the separation of powers might actually be working" regarding a bipartisan proposal to make amends for a ruling many had hoped for, but that the Supreme Court did not think it could make.

Will's headline and focus are on a "judicial ruling prompt[ing] two senators to pursue legislation to curtail executive branch mischief," but the measure will indeed be good news for other reasons should it pass and be signed into law.

The problem this legislation seeks to fix is that the plainly wrong pandemic-era jawboning of social media platforms was not unambiguously illegal in part because the threats were delivered in secret:

[The bill w]ould require government to make public certain kinds of communications with social media companies, artificial intelligence companies and broadcasters. And would establish that plaintiffs must prove only that government attempted censorship, not that its pressure by itself succeeded. And would provide for money damages, instead of mere injunctions, for plaintiffs when an offending official left office while a case wended its way through courts.

So, crude and sneaky overreaching by the executive was followed by the Supreme Court's austere (and reasonable) refusal to overreach by ignoring principles of standing. This has prompted two lawmakers to respond. If Congress makes that response a law, there will have been a minuet of actions and reactions driven by each branch's prerogatives, responsibilities and incentives. The separation of powers will have functioned as intended.

As I greet the good news regarding freedom of speech, I agree with Will that our government working properly is indeed also newsworthy.

Let's hope -- and work for the day -- that checks and balances working their magic becomes un-newsworthy again.

-- CAV

Trump Drags Feet, Costs Lives on Drone Tech

Ukraine, whose efforts at self-defense have repeatedly been stymied by President Trump, has developed a drone capability superior to an American rocket system it was consequently having trouble procuring:

Spring, identified only by her call sign for security purposes, flies a newer type of winged drone that enables Ukraine to consistently strike Russia's rear areas -- a capability previously only provided by Western artillery and munitions, such as the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System.

Mid-range HIMARS strikes were key to undermining Russia's attack style early in the war, but Russia was able to curb that threat after the first year, analysts told Business Insider. Now, they said, the new drones are bringing that strike effect back in a way Western arms have not been able to do at scale.

...

The use of these drones has risen in the last two months, and Russia has been losing more ground than it has gained, marking a reversal of a yearslong trend in which Ukraine had been slowly bleeding territory.

As the article makes evident, the new drones incorporate abilities (like using AI) lacking in the older rocket technology, avoid the strings attached to the U.S.-supplied rockets (like limits on target selection), and cost much less to produce.

Despite the President siding with Russia throughout its invasion of this friendly nation, Ukraine has offered to work with our military on drone development, only for Trump to drag his feet:

[E]ven with senior Pentagon officials -- including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll -- lauding Kyiv's drone abilities, the Trump administration is still biding its time on taking full advantage of the Ukrainian capabilities, a delay that experts say is potentially kneecapping the U.S. military.

"I don't know what the hang-up would be in denying ourselves the ability to take advantage of that. I don't think there's any good reason," Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute think tank, said of Ukraine's drone capabilities.

...

One former official who spoke to The Hill on the condition of anonymity made a more blunt assessment, calling the hold-up "lethargy" on the part of the Trump administration and "a certain amount of hostility towards Ukraine coming from the very top."

Each article notes different consequences of Trump's asinine hostility toward Ukraine, with Business Insider noting our country's loss of influence:

"We can't be certain that we can rely on the US," Bielieskov said. "92 kilometers, GPS-guided is not enough, it can be spoofed. So we have the incentive to develop something of a bigger range, more reliable, and with a bigger warhead." [bold added]

One needn't advocate America being the world's policeman to appreciate how damning it is to hear such words coming from a country whose interests align with our own.

And, speaking of our own country's interests, The Hill has this to say:

"The U.S. is putting its own troops in danger by not working as closely as possible with the Ukrainians on drone development," Phillips O'Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, wrote on social media. "To stay close to Putin, Trump is showing once again how little he cares about US soldiers." [bold added]

Donald Trump's actions regarding Ukraine are costing our nation goodwill and the lives of our soldiers abroad, and for no good purpose anyone can discern.

-- CAV

Immigration Wins in Switzerland

In Switzerland, a MAGA-like political party got an anti-immigration population cap put to a national referendum and lost. It is instructive to consider the reasons it lost:

Others, in particular Swiss business leaders, feared losing Switzerland's crucial access to Europe's single market.

Over half of all Swiss products are sold into the EU, but their access to Europe's markets depends on Swiss commitment to Europe's free movement of people. Had the population cap been approved, Switzerland would have had to terminate that agreement.

...

Only Swiss citizens were allowed to vote, but in the cities, which have larger immigrant communities than in the countryside, the proposal got a particularly resounding no.

In the capital city Bern, for example, almost 84% of those voting rejected a population cap.

...

"The EU is still by far the most important trading partner for Switzerland," explains Minsch, adding that is it is "in our interest to have stable and clear relationships with our main trading partner".

Swiss employers were also worried about labour shortages, and losing access to a Europe-wide pool of skilled workers.

The issue of losing the EU as a trading partner strikes me as something the proponent Swiss People's Party might have demagogued as bureaucratic overreach, or an issue of national sovereignty. But free movement is an individual right, and recognizing that right is part of that country's trading agreement. The issue of labor shortages -- easily solved through immigration -- shows that respecting individual rights is in the self-interest of the businessmen, the immigrants, and their customers alike.

One issue that plausibly seems worsened by a high immigrant population -- bigger costs related to the welfare state -- is a red herring: As I and others have argued in the past, the problem is the welfare state:

Were the educational and medical sectors privately run, we would not attract or encourage freeloaders, and non-citizens who used these facilities would be paying customers.

I am glad for Switzerland's sake that its voters ignored the scapegoaters and chose freedom, the path of prosperity, in this referendum.

If only voters in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave had half as much sense!

-- CAV

Freedom Four

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "The Foreign-Born Heroes Who Chose America," by Agustina Vergara Cid (The Orange County Register):

Lafayette chose to fight for America after he became enamored with the cause for independence. In 1778, he wrote: "The moment I heard of America I loved her; the moment I knew she was fighting for freedom I burnt with a desire of bleeding for her; and the moment I shall be able to serve her, at any time, or in any part of the world, will be the happiest of my life." He wasn't the only foreigner who felt this profound reverence for this country even though he didn't have any prior connection to it.

950 words/3 minutes

2. "Why the Missing Outrage Over (Domestic) Terrorism?," by Ben Bayer (The Orange County Register):

Could it be that there's less outrage towards terrorism directed against businesspeople, because the dominant moral dogma of our culture still sees profit-driven activity as less than noble? I for one reject that dogma. They are innocent victims of terrorism. Not only that: contrary to the Marxist smear of "exploiters," their productivity, industriousness and ingenuity create valuable products and services we choose to buy.

1250 words/4 minutes

3. "The Real Climate Crisis," (video) by Alex Epstein (Prager U):

But while climate change -- humans impacting climate -- is a real thing, "climate crisis" is not. The world is slowly becoming warmer -- at a cold point in geological history when many more people die of cold than of heat. This doesn't at all justify rapidly restricting global fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels actually make us far safer from the climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century. The only rational approach to reducing fossil fuels' climate impacts is a long-term one based on developing truly competitive, reliable forms of energy -- most promisingly, nuclear energy. Unfortunately, instead of taking this rational approach, governments declared a "climate crisis" and started immediately restricting fossil fuels -- with no viable replacement. They pretended that solar and wind could somehow replace fossil fuels. But since these fuels are inherently unreliable -- they can go to near-zero at any given time -- there was never any reason to believe this.

800 word transcript/5 minute video

4. "Drug Patents Do Not Cause High Drug Prices," (Introduction) by Adam Mossoff (white paper (PDF) from the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property):

In sum, the claim that drug patents cause high drug prices is ubiquitous in the drug price policy debates, but this ubiquity does not correlate with reliable data or proven harms that make it true. This white paper first describes how property rights in inventions (patents) are a key factor in innovation and economic growth, especially in spurring innovations in new drugs and other healthcare treatments to the benefit of all patients. Thus, the evidentiary burden rests on activists and academics who propose systemic "reforms" that restrict patent rights for drug innovators and impose additional costs on all healthcare innovators. Second, it reviews USPTO and FDA data and summarizes numerous empirical studies that consistently contradict allegations by I-MAK and other activists of patent thickets and evergreening by drug innovators. Dug innovators in fact have far less than the 20-year exclusive right secured to inventors by the Patent Act. Third, it explains how systemic changes to the patent system only for drug innovators violates the principle of technology neutrality that has been an essential feature of the U.S. patent system as a successful property rights regime in incentivizing the creation and distributing of new drugs in the healthcare market to the benefit of patients.

800 words/3 minutes

-- CAV

Healthy Alternatives to 'Keeping the Peace'

A female grad student in history asked Captain Awkward about alternatives to suffering the condescending behavior of her mother's new partner some time back.

As Captain Awkward notes, the thinking she did and the advice she came up with apply to many situations, and I think are worth considering for people who find themselves stuck -- usually at work or with relatives -- dealing with people they'd ordinarily not have anything to do with.

One strategy I found particularly intriguing was the following, which I like because it hacks whatever value orientation such people might have:

2) Find three "safe" topics.

In a weird way, A. might be trying to engage with you (he thinks) positively by showing interest in stuff you like, like history. He's also a walking bag of insecurities who has to be the smartest & the best at everything, so there is no way this will go well. And he has the unfortunate "arguing until the other person is visibly upset is a form of fun!" chip installed. It's bad.

I suggest that you find three safe topics to talk about with A.

Topic 1: One where he is the expert or something he is passionate about, like, international business travel or being an old, somewhat privileged dude. Grilling. Fine wine. Sports. What you want is something that is of passing interest to you but you're not the expert or especially emotionally invested, but it is really interesting to him. And then you ask questions and let him talk.

True story, I once did tech support for a company. There was this older gentleman who was The Guy For Whom Everything Does Not Work As It Should. It was mostly not his fault, just, he had a bad track record of getting broken/shitty equipment or having stuff go wrong. And I was a girl learning the job as I went because it was a temp job & I was filling in for someone, and everything was somehow all my fault and all of our interactions were very negative.

I noticed once that he wore a Cleveland Indians (yes, the team name is racist) polo shirt, and that happened to be on a day where I had glimpsed the front page of the sports section (rare), so I was able to sort of say something like "Great win for the Indians ... last night, huh?" in an attempt at pleasant small talk. And he lit up and told me about the Indians ... the entire time I fixed his computer. After that, every time I went to see him, I would check and see how the Indians ... were doing first. Note: I did not pretend to know anything or care about or be a fan of the team. I never said anything beyond "Looks like it was a rough night!" or "What does this mean for the playoffs?" and let him do the rest.

Not only did he decide I was his new best bro-girl, after I left the job he tracked down my info through my temp agency and sent me a "Good luck, if you ever need a reference or a job lead, just call!" greeting card. I know a lot of people genuinely love, live & breathe sports, but until I met that dude I did not realize that even for people who aren't that into them, sports serve as a magically safe current events topic that anyone can opine on. Epiphany! "How 'bout them Cowboys?"

The other two suggestions for safe topics share the essential characteristic of being things the difficult person cares about, but which will not lead straight into a conversation you'd rather not have with said person.

The remaining strategies will be helpful in that they involve finding ways to spend less time around the difficult person and give oneself psychological space by, for example, being more assertive over time or simply being honest with oneself about disliking the difficult person.

-- CAV

Bureaucrats vs. Need

Fellow fans and students of Ayn Rand might recall the following quote from Francisco d'Anconia's Atlas Shrugged speech about money:

[W]hen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing ... you may know that your society is doomed. (p. 385)

One might also recall this conclusion seeming plain as day, for which one can thank Ayn Rand's masterful building of context, by weaving together concrete examples together with philosophical argument.

Taken in isolation, such a statment might make little sense, and certainly would have little intellectual purchase with a reader from a culture saturated with altruism -- the idea that one man's need is a moral claim on another's effort; and collectivism -- the belief that the basic unit of a society is not the individual, but some larger collective to which each individual belongs.

That said, the state government of Louisiana has provided us with a real-life example of what that quote means on a personal level that one is unlikely to forget.

In fact, it's such a good example, I'm torn between looking for where Ayn Rand anticipated it and wondering if she would have left it out for fear of her novel being dismissed as a farce.

[I]n many states, if you want to start a business, you first must convince bureaucrats that your business is "needed."

Four years ago, Louisiana blocked social worker Ursula Newell-Davis from helping kids with special needs. Bureaucrats said she hadn't proved her business was needed.

"Why does the state of Louisiana have the right to stop me from doing what I love?" she asks... [bold added]

It is incredible that anyone would have to explain -- to the satisfaction of someone other than a potential customer -- that what one wants to do for a livelihood is "needed." (And it's doubly so for someone with a good track record of earning money and praise from past clients in that field.)

My incredulity is matched only by my relief to hear from the rest of John Stossel's report that the ridiculous law behind this is being challenged in court by the good people at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

-- CAV

Has Trump Created a Monster?

From Politico comes a story about one of the kook factions that Trump successfully pandered to to win the Presidency a second time.

The so-called Make America Healthy Again "movement" (MAHA) -- a collection of environmentalist-adjacent Luddites who oppose such boons to human flourishing as vaccination, modern fertilizers, and pesticides -- has become impatient because they feel Trump hasn't handed them enough favors. Some of them are now threatening to withdraw their support for him in the mid-terms.

This comes, predictably, with Republican officials protesting that they've done more for MAHA than the Democrats ever did:

"We thought we were getting a different administration that wanted to stand up to special interests, stand up to the pharmaceutical industry, stand up to the food companies, stand up to Big Ag, Big Chem. And that is not what we got. What we have right now is business as usual," said Vani Hari, a leader in the MAHA movement known as Food Babe who rose to prominence through her fight against chemicals in food.

"We're going to vote for whatever candidate puts the health of our children first," Hari said. "I don't have loyalty to anybody. And a lot of people feel that way within the MAHA movement."

This reminds me of a couple of things, the first being how conservatives -- seemingly until yesterday -- once correctly ridiculed such people as the lunatics they are.

Second, it reminds me of how effective voter blocs work in a two-party system: By being up for grabs, thereby making both parties responsive to their agenda.

Whether accurate or not, the perception that Trump needed MAHA to win in 2024, which he reinforced by handing Bobby Kennedy a cabinet post, is now part of the conventional wisdom. Based on the Republicans' past, sorry history of appeasing the Democrats on everything else, it's a safe bet that this will continue indefinitely along this new frontier. And the taste of political power Trump handed MAHA will have emboldened them and made them not content with being taken for granted by either party.

In an age where neither party qualifies as a champion of science -- with Democrat misuse of science to pretend their political aims are legitimate making Republican rejection of science seem less bad than it is -- Trump may well have made this army of crackpots into a political force that can press for horrible government science policy for decades to come.

-- CAV